Sunday, June 30, 2013

Palin warns GOP: 'If you abandon us, we’ll abandon you'

This isn't their first warning, but it's another sign that conservatives' patience are wearing razor thin...
theRightScoop: [Saturday], Sarah Palin sent a warning shot over the bow of the GOP, suggesting that if they continue to back away from the principles in our party, people are going to form a new party and she might be among them...
"I love the name of that party — the 'Freedom Party'. And if the GOP continues to back away from the planks in our platform, from the principles that built this party of Lincoln and Reagan, then yeah, more and more of us are going to start saying, 'You know, what's wrong with being independent,' kind of with that libertarian streak that much of us have. In other words, we want government to back off and not infringe upon our rights. I think there will be a lot of us who start saying 'GOP, if you abandon us, we have nowhere else to go except to become more independent and not enlisted in a one or the other private majority parties that rule in our nation, either a Democrat or a Republican.' Remember these are private parties, and you know, no one forces us to be enlisted in either party."
Just a few weeks back, Levin similarly warned the GOP: 'If I and the conservative base leave you, you’re finished.'

"And I want to warn the Republican Leadership about something. If I and millions of us decide to leave you; if I and millions of us – the conservative base, the constitutionalists, that taxpayers, the people who make this country work – if we decide to leave you, you’re finished. You’re kaput. You’ll never be in the majority again. And God knows you’re provoking us."
If this Republican Party doesn't wake the hell up, then a third party is exactly what will happen. Of course that would undoubtedly mean Democrats winning the brunt of the next few election cycles. But how's it working for us when Republicans act like the Democratic-lite Party? Casting aside principles to be a permanent minority of the DC Ruling Class. At this rate, as Rush has repeated, we may have Chris Christie running on the Democratic ticket! Conservatives, we may have no other choice.

Question is, which elected official would be the first to pull the trigger and make the switch? Who'd be the first to make that proverbial shot heard round our world?

West: 'time draws near to teach this usurper and charlatan the lesson our forefathers taught King George III'

Another hint at something higher? They're definitely fighting words coming from Allen West's Facebook page, especially the last few:
"This week we’ll celebrate the 237th anniversary of our independence. But are we a free people? SCOTUS made an ill-conceived ruling believing the choice of sexual behavior should trump the peoples’s referendum. We are free to love anyone or anything we desire in America, but that does not correlate to rights beyond the unalienable ones Jefferson articulated 237 years ago.

In California we have a state-funded grant for the Los Angeles Unified School District to abuse the concept of public education by turning public schools into indoctrination factories, forcing children to spout the joys of Obamacare. The district listed as a primary outcome for its project, "Teens trained to be messengers to family members." Covered California spokeswoman Sarah Soto-Taylor said staff have not questioned this goal. She stated, "We have confidence that the model LA Unified brought to the table will be successful in reaching our target population, which includes family members of students." LA Unified will also use tax-paid staff to promote ObamaCare through phone calls to students' homes, in-class presentations, and meetings with employees eligible for ObamaCare's taxpayer-covered healthcare, the grant award says.

Obama said he would fundamentally transform America. The time draws near to teach this usurper and charlatan the lesson our forefathers taught King George III. We will not be ruled by arrogance and edict."
Another point of interest, West has something called the Allen West Guardian Fund, which is currently running a 2016 presidential straw poll...he's not among the picks. There's a few really good picks, and then there's plenty of the touted turncoats.

Levin: While you're distracted with Paula Deen and Zimmerman trial, 'The Country's going to Hell!'

I've made a point not to address the Paula Deen story or the Zimmerman case, simply because in the scope of everything going on, THEY DON'T MATTER! As Levin iterated Friday, who cares about that crap, "THE COUNTRY'S GOING TO HELL!"

Related link: Mark Levin Asks ‘Why Is Zimmerman Case Deserving Of Nonstop National Attention?’

York: Gang used Rubio on amnesty to silence conservative opposition

This is pretty much stating the obvious, but it's nonetheless a teachable moment. Byron York takes us through the Senate's done deal on amnesty passage, and basically tells the tale of how Rubio was utilized by the Gang to silence conservative opposition, because they'd be reluctant to harm him, and how it worked brilliantly... 
WashingtonExaminer: Republicans were able to keep their heads down in part because there wasn't a lot of pressure coming from the anti-reform conservative base. And that owed a great deal to the Gang's decision to dispatch Rubio, elected as a Tea Party favorite in 2010 and viewed as a future leader of the Republican Party, on a mission to allay conservative suspicions about the bill.

"Menendez told me that Rubio's role was to 'work over the conservative universe, particularly the conservative opinion-maker universe,' in order to 'neutralize them' and, in some cases, 'proselytize them,'" the New Yorker's Ryan Lizza reported recently, referring to Democratic Gang member Robert Menendez. The leader of the Gang, Democrat Charles Schumer, "was delighted to have a Tea Party conservative who could sell an immigration bill to the right," Lizza wrote.

The plan worked brilliantly. Conservative talk radio hosts who might have instinctively opposed immigration reform as conceived by Schumer gave Rubio a respectful hearing and a lot of room. When Rubio told them the bill would secure the border first, they believed him.

Later, when it became unavoidably clear that, in fact, the bill would first legalize millions of currently illegal immigrants, and only after that start the work of securing the border, some conservatives began to express skepticism, disappointment and opposition. But Rubio's neutralization campaign had bought the Gang precious months to write the bill and gather momentum before conservatives began to realize what was actually in it.

The Gang also got lucky. During the time the bill was under consideration, a lot of Republicans became distracted by various Obama administration troubles — IRS targeting of conservatives, Justice Department spying on the press, NSA spying on everyone else, Benghazi. Immigration reform was simply less exciting than the latest scandal that might bring down the president. Then came Edward Snowden's catch-me-if-you-can flight, and, lastly, two big Supreme Court decisions that overshadowed immigration reform's final week in the Senate.
Of course it wasn't without a few hitches, which is why they almost lost the reigns and had to have the assistance of Corker-Hoeven. And many conservative did actually catch on to what was going on early in the game. But beyond some other nuances, York's got the broader portrait sketched out. He also concludes that even with all the brillant conniving, one thing's for certain about Rubio and the rest of these so-called Republicans: "They have disappointed a lot of their conservatives supporters, most likely for a long time." That's an understatement.

Related link: RUSH: Rubio Used On Amnesty ‘To Silence Conservative Opposition’

Friday, June 28, 2013

Religious Liberty: More than a Hobby

The Lord doth provide. One Christian business finds its footing on a ledge of the moral cliff...
NRO: The biggest judicial victory yet in the cases of religious objectors to Obamacare’s Department of Health and Human Services abortion-drug, contraception, sterilization mandate has come [Thursday] in a ruling for Hobby Lobby, allowing the case to go on without the imminent threat of fines.

Although consistently pretending to have accommodated religious-organizations concerns, the White House has never voiced an interest in the religious-liberty rights of business owners; and this latest ruling, is a positive sign that there are jurists who can see through the secularist ideology to protect religious freedom.

This comes during the second Fortnight for Freedom, a two week period of prayer and education lead by Catholics, seeking to remind people of our civic responsibilities as stewards of civil liberties. As the Green family that runs Hobby Lobby has expressed, Christianity is a seven-day a week matter, it’s a call to an integrated life, not something that can be confined — and by the government — to inside houses of worship — or Sunday flows into Monday as New York’s Cardinal Dolan recently put it.

Related link: VICTORY: 10th Circuit Overturns Denial of Hobby Lobby Injunction

No matter how big or small it may seem, we'll graciously take the victory in this growing age of secularization and statism.
Thanks to the Green family for drawing a line in the sand. We have to draw lines in the sand. Or we’re going to be sliding down a “ski slope.”

When religious liberty was threatened, where were we? Increasingly we will be called to rise to the occasion.
Onward Christian soldiers...

While GOP consultants help ACLU push SSM, Heritage helps states make the case for Marriage

"The left is hiring Republicans (or co-opting Republicans) into advancing the left's agenda...under the guise of helping them." ~ El Rushbo
But can you really refer to these guys as co-opted when they're just more nonconservatives calling themselves Republicans? Boy, are they determined to sink this ship...
TheDC: Shortly after the Supreme Court struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act, the American Civil Liberties Union announced a new initiative aimed at winning Republican support for gay marriage at the state level.

The ACLU’s campaign will be led by Steve Schmidt, a Republican consultant who held senior positions in the presidential campaigns of George W. Bush and John McCain. Schmidt also managed Arnold Schwarzenegger’s California gubernatorial re-election campaign.

Additionally, the ACLU announced the hiring of GOProud co-founder and former Executive Director Jimmy LaSalvia. LaSalvia’s task will be outreach to gay conservatives, according to a statement released by the group.

The two Republicans were hired as part of a broader initiative challenging state legal and constitutional provisions that restrict marriage to a man and a woman. The ACLU is planning to spend $10 million on this effort through 2016.
You see, folks, it's never enough. We've gotta give up every principle we stand for as conservatives in order for the Republican Party to be 'loved' again. What utter bull...
RUSH: So, yeah. "The Republicans gotta do this in order to have a chance at gay money. In order to have a chance at gay votes, Republicans have got to do this. They have got to come out and gotta put this issue behind them," and pretty soon there isn't going to be a Republican Party. This is one reason why I predicted two or three weeks ago that Chris Christie will seek the Democrat presidential nomination in 2016. There isn't gonna be a Republican Party. If these folks get their way, there isn't gonna be a Republican Party as it's now known.
But The Heritage Foundation helps remind us that although the SCOTUS, along with these GOP consultants, are getting this so wrong, there is an important takeaway that we mustn't lose sight of...
The marriage debate is every bit as alive today as it was yesterday morning...and that means it’s time to redouble our efforts to stand for marriage across America. Some key numbers following the decisions:
  • 50 - The number of states whose marriage laws remain the same after the Court’s marriage decisions. 
  • 12 - The number of states that can now force the federal government to recognize their redefinition of marriage. The Court struck Section 3 of DOMA, which means that it must recognize same-sex marriages in states that redefine marriage. 
  • 1 - The number of sections of the Defense of Marriage Act struck down yesterday (Section 3). Section 2, which ensures that no state will be forced to recognize another state’s redefinition of marriage, is still law. 
  • 0 - The number of states forced to recognize other states’ redefinition of marriage.
The important news you may not be hearing is that the U.S. Supreme Court did not redefine marriage across the nation. That means the debate about marriage will continue.

States will lead the way even as we work to restore clear marriage policy at the federal level. And in the states, support for marriage as the union of a man and a woman remains strong.
Furthermore, Heritage acknowledges the battles to come that the Court's decisions have presented, but encourages Americans to remain vigilant. And that’s why they've produced an e-booklet called “What You Need to Know about Marriage” to help educate the citizenry and prepare to make the case for Marriage (no hyphen needed).

Download your free copy at

Thursday, June 27, 2013

The Levin Proposal: an absolutely stunning detail of Mexico's immigration laws

Although reviewing it in the past, this might be Levin's most extensive detailing of Mexico's immigration laws. And considering what our U.S. Senate just did this afternoon, it's high time that these elected officials, along with the rest of the nation, receive a proper education on what a tough immigration system should sound like...
"I think you’re gonna be stunned about Mexico’s Immigration Law, or its General Law on Population as it’s known there. Absolutely stunned! And it’s absolutely relevant and was completely ignored by these fourteen Republican Senators..."

"What a bunch of suckers we are to put up with this."

"And so it is ‘The Levin Proposal.’ Take the Mexican Immigration Laws, which also are in the Mexican Constitution, take the cover page, stamp United States Of America Comprehensive Immigration Reform, and put it on the floor of the Senate, put it on the floor of the House, and see how many of them support it. Because not a damn one of these Republicans who vote for this stuff, not one, insisted on reciprocity from the country on Mexico. Not one!"
EXCELLENT idea, Great One.

Rush: There is an all out ‘War on Religion’

Earlier today, while tossing around all the disintegration of standards, the indecency and secular rot that's grinding down America, Rush made a brief, yet profound acknowledgement of what's ultimately being targeted and attacked here: GOD.
And it just doesn’t seem that there is any — I don’t know what the word — sympathy, concern for the people I’ve always judged to be those who make the country work. So you sit here and you witness it and you watch it, and listen to people say when you express concern about, “Come on, Rush, get with it! The country’s changing. It isn’t the way it was when you were growing up.” That’s, of course, true for everybody. The country’s always evolving and changing.

But that’s why there are standards: Decency, decorum, behavior. But it is clear, there is an all-out war, and it’s been going on for a long time. I think it’s just the idea that is now having a little bit more success than we would like, the all-out war against religion, the war against God. God, religion, the Bible, that is the source for morality. That is the source for right and wrong, and that is the source material for much of the ethics or the ethic in this country.

And because it is so disliked and hated by a bunch of people who judge themselves not to fit into it, they just want to tear it down so that there is no judgmentalism; there is no perceived right and wrong; nobody has the right to determine what’s good, decent, bad or forbidden. It’s just, “Everything’s okay. Whatever you want to do, fine and dandy! Have at it,” which is all well and good except when you start demanding everybody else pay you for it.

Senate 'officially' passes amnesty bill

Predictable, but still, what a betrayal

While most Americans (well, at least half of us!) were hard at work today, our Senators were busy paving the way for millions of non-citizens to flood our country, our markets, our benefits, you get the gist of it. Yes, the U.S. Senate has officially passed their immigration bill, and with plenty of help from RINOs: 68-32.
CNN: The U.S. Senate gave final approval Thursday to a roughly 1,200-page bill that promises to overhaul immigration laws for the first time since 1986, creating a path to citizenship for millions of undocumented residents while ratcheting up security along the Mexican border.
Yeah, baloney.

Here's the list of shame:

Folks, whether this next midterm or 2016, there's your list of RINOs to PRIMARY OUT! Oh, and Mississippi, don't let Wicker off the hook either. He voted for cloture on the Corker-Hoeven amendment that effectively sealed the deal on this Gang of Eight garbage. And Kentucky, it's time for some effective leadership, and we won't find that in the feckless wonder that is Mitch McConnell, who didn't lift a damn finger to coalesce Republicans against this disastrous bill.

Now it's off to the House, where it's supposedly already tabled, per Boehner and the Republican leadership over there...we'll see.

Related links: DEVASTATING: Hugh Hewitt exposes Hoeven and the Corker-Hoeven amendment as a complete fraud
Washington's Plan: Ram Through the Immigration Bill and Hope You Get Over It
RUSH: Ryan ‘Hell-Bent’ On Persuading People That ‘Whatever Happens In The House, It’s Not Amnesty’
Arizona Voters Move to Recall Flake and McCain… It’s PAYBACK Time

John McCain attacks Deb Fischer after criticism of immigration bill

The Maverick, or rather Codger, was at it again on Tuesday, attacking one from his own party who dares to challenge his Gang's shamnesty bill and expose it for what it is. But the ever-so-polite, conservative junior Senator from Nebraska, Deb Fischer, held her own against McRINO, and made him look like the babbling fool he's become...
RollCall: Tensions about the immigration amendment process led to a particularly tense exchange on Tuesday, with “gang of eight” member Sen. John McCain questioning a fellow Republican who said the immigration bill wouldn’t secure the border.

The Arizona Republican accused freshman Nebraska Sen. Deb Fischer of making a “series of false statements” about the bill.

Following a lengthy floor statement in which Fischer criticized border security language in the Senate’s bipartisan immigration measure and contrasted it with an amendment she had written, McCain sought recognition for the purpose of what in Senate parlance is known as asking a question:

Mark Levin, who supported Deb Fischer's election along with Sarah Palin, had a few choice words for career politician McLame...
"You know, ladies and gentlemen, John McCain could have been such a great statesman, given his war hero background as a POW. But as a politician, John McCain has been nothing but a disaster. I look at the First Amendment that he assaulted with this phony McCain-Feingold, where the Supreme Court stepped in with Citizens United, which was a blatant attack on free political speech, which runs to the heart of this nation's founding and who we are, and he teams up with Feingold. Now he teams up with Schumer once again with this comprehensive amnesty. He runs for office for reelection, 'Build the dang fence! Build the dang fence!' I recall the Bush tax cuts, watching Meet the DePressed, and there was John McLame going on and on that we can't balance the budget on the backs of the poor and so forth and so on, and opposing the tax cuts. Then later, again facing reelection, he supported them. But ladies and gentlemen, the reason those tax cuts weren't passed as permanent, as permanent can be, but lapsed is as compromised not with the Democrats but John McCain. I see a man who's never seen a war he doesn't want us to get involved in. I see a man who supported Cap & Trade several years ago. He is a reckless individual, absolutely reckless."

This 'nasty old man' is not gonna secure a damn thing, except more misery for Americans.

Oh, and thank you once again, Mr. Levin, for reminding us...say FoxNews, give somebody else a chance besides McLame & Grahamnesty all the time, for Pete's sake!

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Mark Levin discusses immigration bill, SCOTUS decisions with Ted Cruz

Two of my favorite people discuss the Supreme Court decisions and the Senate's amnesty bill: The Great One and My Great Senator! When discussing the Executives role in ignoring current immigration law, Ted says, "This President has been the most lawless president in modern times."

One interesting portion where Mark said Rubio texted him to tell him what he's saying about the Gang of 8 bill is NOT accurate. Both men took issue...
theRightScoop: In an interview with Ted Cruz, Mark Levin revealed that Rubio texted him about an hour before this interview and told him that what he is saying about the Senate immigration bill is not accurate. He told Cruz that Rubio flat out denies that Napolitano can ignore portions of the bill due to waivers and he asks Cruz if that is correct.
...I think Levin's friendship with Rubio has finally worn thin enough for him to see beyond it and awaken to that deceiver's false premise...finally!

Levin on DOMA decision: 'It's an abomination'

Leading off the program with the judicial tyranny of the day, Levin launched into the unmoored, breakaway Court. Mark asks who will check the five justices on the Supreme Court when the rest of society thinks they're wrong? The way it works now, nobody...that's nowhere in the Constitution!
"This is all a political ruse, a power grab by the liberals on the Court. And Anthony Kennedy, who feels that this is his issue, whether it was same-sex sodomy in the Lawrence decision, a host of other decisions, or this decision, because he wrote this decision. And the four activist judges on the Supreme Court were happy to have him do it. And the decision is essentially incomprehensible. No, it’s understandable in terms of its flow, but substantively, it’s an abomination. And that's what happens when a handful of people twist and turn the Constitution and judicial precedent and the facts to come out where they want them to come out. It's yet more damage that's been done to our belief in the Supreme Court and the federal system, more damage that's been done to the Constitution."
"The idea that the Court would step in, and not even the Court, five individuals on the Court, a majority, and redefine marriage for purposes of the federal government, and do something much more sinister than that with respect to more evidence to me that we live in a post-constitutional America. Absolutely. No question about it."
Related link: “Just a matter of time” – Mark Levin says BOTH SCOTUS decisions TOGETHER have nationalized same-sex marriage
On Wednesday's Mark Levin Show: The Supreme Court made its decision reversing the Defense of Marriage Act, as well as on Proposition 8 in California and Mark explains that we now have the Courts taking power away from the states to decide issues. The Supreme Court is now involved with regulating and making law on culture and culture wars in America. Mark explains federalism, if we believe the states have power or authority for themselves or not, as well as the subject of nullification. Mark says this isn't judicial review, it's judicial tyranny.

Rush: Scalia’s dissent of DOMA ruling is ‘breathtaking’

Rush discussed Scalia's 'breathtaking' dissent in the DOMA ruling.
"In his view, what's happened here, the Supreme Court has now demonized proponents, supporters of traditional marriage as it's been understood for thousands of years, the Supreme Court majority in its ruling actually uses language that insults and demonizes the people who support as its been since the beginning of time. Now if you ever had any doubt that the Left is intolerant and fully invested in the low art of personal destruction through smear tactics, just read Scalia's dissent..."

Rush says we're up against people who don't give a damn about the rule of law or about basic decency or about decorum...
"...what animates people on the Left, what motivates them, what informs them, is defeating us, no matter how, no matter what, no matter what it means...their hatred for us overwhelms everything else. And no matter the results, victory that includes impugning and demeaning and insulting us is what they seek, is what makes them happy."
Here's a little bit of Scalia's dissent:
"The majority concludes that the only motive for the Defense of Marriage Act was the 'bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group'..."
Think about that. The majority on the Court believes that DOMA was only conceived because supporters wanted to harm gay people. Rush says, "Just that allegation has nothing to do with the law!" And both he and Scalia would be correct. Then the majority proceeded from there to declare the Act, created by a Democratic-led Congress and signed by a Democrat President mind you, unconstitutional.

This ruling epitomizes the essence of an activist judiciary. And you can guarantee this administration relishes its accomplishment as much or more than FDR did while wielding power and influence over his.

Related link: 5 Libs And Justice Kennedy Couldn’t Wait To Insult Supporters Of Traditional Marriage

ADDENDUM: Here's more from Rush...
"What the Supreme Court majority said today essentially was 'we're gonna find that DOMA was bad because we don't like the people who are for it. We don't care about the law, we don't care what happened legislatively, we just don't like the people, because we think the people who support DOMA hate gays, and the don't like gay marriage, and they make fun of gay people, and they stigmatize gay people, and we want to stick it to'em! So here's your DOMA, and put it where the sun don't shine!' That's the essence of the Supreme Court's decision today. Nothing to do with whether it was constitutional. Nothing to do with whether it was legislatively correct, whether or not the people's elected representatives have the right to make and enforce law in this country... Five Justices basically said, 'We know you people hate gays, so we're gonna ram this right back down your throat. Here, how does it taste? They, the majority in this decision, used character assassination as a means of deciding this case, not the law."
Now WE, conservatives, Christians, traditionalists, constitutionalists, have been stigmatized as bigots, haters, elitists, whatever else they want to call tolerant, huh?

Reminder: Montage Of Obama Opposing Gay Marriage, When He Was A Bigot

Amnesty critics flood Senate with phone calls, Boehner deterred from bringing Senate bill to House

Well, something positive on the immigration front.

NRO’s Jonathan Strong tweets that Boehner says he won't bring the Senate immigration bill to the House floor...

And much of that is likely due to YOU! Conservatives, Americans, are bombarding Senate phone lines before a final vote on this Schumer-Rubio amnesty bill...
TheDC: Critics of the Democrat-led immigration rewrite are bombarding Senate offices with thousands of phone calls, and advocates say those calls are keeping numerous wayward GOP Senators from joining the Democrats’ immigration bill.

“Five hundred [calls] yesterday, and right now, they’re just ringing non-stop,” said an upset staffer at the office of Mississippi Republican Sen. Roger Wicker, who has voted on both sides of the dispute.

Protestors have sent “hundreds or thousands” of calls to Ohio Republican Sen. Robert Portman’s Republican office, a staff member told The Daily Caller.

“That vast majority of calls today have been on that… [and] we’ve been getting calls on that for a couple of weeks,” said a staffer working for Pennsylvania Democrat Sen. Robert Casey.

The calls have stiffened the spine of GOP Senators who might otherwise bend to pressure from business groups and from influential people in their home state, such as editorial writers and clerics, said Roy Beck, executive director of NumbersUSA, which provides a free phone service for Americans who oppose the massive rewrite.
Thank you Roy Beck & NumbersUSA...keep fighting, America! (numbers provided in link!)

Texas Republicans fail to pass ban on abortions after 20 weeks (UPDATES)

Ready for more disappointment today? Too bad...

As you may or may not know, on Monday, the Texas House of Representatives passed a bill banning abortions after 20 weeks. Sounds reasonable, right? Well, the bill went to the Texas Senate, where it was supposed to be pass, then on to Gov. Perry's desk to be signed into law...unless Democrats, with their angry mob, were able to effectively filibuster it. Guess what Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and the Republican majority allowed to happen?

As theRightScoop reported, "I go to bed thinking the bill passed and wake up to an entirely different reality":
YahooNews: Despite barely beating a midnight deadline, hundreds of jeering protesters helped stop Texas lawmakers from passing one of the toughest abortion measures in the country.

As the protesters raised the noise to deafening levels in the Texas Senate chamber late Tuesday, Republicans scrambled to gather their colleagues at the podium for a stroke-of-midnight vote on some of the toughest abortion restrictions in the country.

Initially, Republicans insisted the vote started before the midnight deadline and passed the bill that Democrats spent the day trying to kill. But after official computer records and printouts of the voting record showed the vote took place Wednesday, and then were changed to read Tuesday, senators retreated into a private meeting to reach a conclusion.

At 3 a.m., Dewhurst emerged from the meeting still insisting the 19-10 vote was in time, but said, “with all the ruckus and noise going on, I couldn’t sign the bill” and declared it dead.

He denounced the more than 400 protesters who staged what they called “a people’s filibuster” from 11:45 p.m. to well past midnight. He denied mishandling the debate.

“I didn’t lose control (of the chamber). We had an unruly mob,” Dewhurst said. He even hinted that Gov. Rick Perry may immediately call another 30-day special session, adding: “It’s over. It’s been fun. But see you soon.”
Cheering the death of children aborted after 20 disgusting. Texas, this is yet another reason why we've gotta elect real conservatives in our state, and not more RINO Bushie wimps...which is precisely why I voted for CRUZ over Dupehurst.

This should have been easily passed with Republican majorities. When this is brought up again, after an untold number of more babies are murdered in our state, maybe you guys in the legislature can get this right and not allow the liberal mob to win out.

Related links: New Poll Finds Plurality Of Americans Support Ban On Abortions After 20 Weeks
Perry may call new special session after abortion bill dies

UPDATE I: BOOM! Gov. Perry Calls Special Session to Begin July 1st for another go at pro-life bill...
Twitchy: Texas State Senator Wendy Davis and a screaming mob of protesters may have successfully prevented a full vote on S.B. 5 last night, but Governor Rick Perry is not deterred. He has called another special legislative session for July 1 to give lawmakers another shot at defending the unborn:

From his office’s official statement:
“I am calling the Legislature back into session because too much important work remains undone for the people of Texas. Through their duly elected representatives, the citizens of our state have made crystal clear their priorities for our great state. Texans value life and want to protect women and the unborn. Texans want a transportation system that keeps them moving. Texans want a court system that is fair and just. We will not allow the breakdown of decorum and decency to prevent us from doing what the people of this state hired us to do."
And as you can imagine, the Left is convulsing because they can't imagine not being able to abort Texas children whenever they'd like after 20 weeks.

UPDATE II: Rick Perry says ‘unfortunate’ Wendy Davis didn’t learned from her own experience...
theRightScoop: Powerful words from Rick Perry on how every life is precious and should be given a chance to thrive, noting that even Wendy Davis, who filibustered the pro-life bill, was born into bad circumstances yet she prevailed. She says it’s unfortunate she didn’t learn from her own experience:

SCOTUS rules DOMA unconstitutional, strikes down California's Prop 8

These are conflicting rulings by the Supreme if that's ever stopped them!

It appears that the ruling against key provisions of DOMA says that those states with gay marriage can maintain it, but it's not forcing it on all the states...
The Supreme Court has struck down a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act forbidding federal recognition of gay marriages for couples residing in states that recognize their union.
That was a 5-4 decision handed down by Justice Anthony Kennedy and the other four liberal justices.

However, with the following ruling that strikes down Prop 8, where the majority of California voters legally expressed their disapproval of same-sex marriage at the ballot box multiple times, the Supreme Court's action seems to only pave the way for a one-way street on the matter. Basically, once it's in, it's there forever. So once the initiative is brought up in your state, what recourse will you, the voters, have to dissuade it? Doesn't seem like much. It would appear that the SCOTUS has opened up Pandora's Box.
CBSLA: The U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday cleared the way for same-sex marriage to resume in California.

The Supreme Court did not take issue on Proposition 8, allowing the state’s former ruling on same-sex marriage to stand, which gives gay couples the right to marry.

“We have no authority to decide this case on the merits, and neither did the 9th Circuit,” Roberts said, referring to the federal appeals court that also struck down Prop. 8.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Antonin Scalia.

Prop. 8 was being challenged by two California same-sex couples after it was approved by 7 million voters in 2008.

The decision only affects marriages in California, which were expected to resume within a month.
Well, I knew we couldn't trust Roberts, but this is the second case this week that Scalia's gotten wrong. Oh well, it's just morality.

Don't think this will stop at California's border, even though the Court says the Prop 8 ruling is limited to that state. I'm pretty sure these back-to-back rulings just cleared the way for activists to push their agenda on every single state, regardless of voters' approval; because as the couple in the Prop 8 case stated afterwards, they're gonna take this nationwide and do it for marriage equality or 'the kids' or something...

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Levin hammers Obama (a.k.a. 'The President of the Flat Earth Society') over climate change plan

"The masterminds, who are no such thing, they claim to use science and knowledge and evidence, when in fact, they reject all of it as they advance their ideology, which is nothing more than a false religion." ~ Mark Levin
I could talk about Obama's climate change speech at Georgetown University today, where he called skeptics 'flat-earthers'...however, it's much more informative to digest the Great One's FIERY dissection of the President's plan, which unsurprisingly skirts Congress as long as they allow him to get away with it (and so far, they have).

Levin begins schooling Obama and his environmental statist ilk on climate change, er, global warming, er, global cooling, eh, whatever they want to call it...
"First of all, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It's not a pollutant now, it won't be a pollutant tomorrow, and it wasn't a pollutant yesterday. ... What is carbon dioxide? Carbon dioxide is part of green house gases. Green house gases are part of our at-mos-phere. If we had no carbon dioxide, we'd be dead!"

Obama today said, “Last year was the hottest on record.” Well maybe if he’d shut up with his hot air, maybe it wouldn’t be!

OBAMA: Our Founders Believed that those of us…

MARK LEVIN: Stop! Our Founders believed? Our Founders would say that you should be impeached. Your whole speech is an indictment of yourself.

He’s gonna do this without Congress. He’s gonna set up a Soviet style five year, ten year plan in industrial policy. Drive up the price of fuel. Drive up the price of electricity. Destroy more jobs. Shutter more businesses. This is the Obama transformation. This is what Marxists and their ilk and their pedigree, this is what they do.

Our Founders. Can he name ten of them?

DailyRushbo: Mark Levin hammered Obama for his false claims that last year was the hottest year on record. Levin goes on to set the record straight on the 15 year lull in global warming. Levin then concludes by saying that Obama is “The President of the Flat Earth Society.”

This, all these bloated bills rushed through Congress, all the executive orders, this lawless governance, "This is why you're disgusted!"
"This is not a Constitutional Republic! Not when a President of the United States can stand up in front of a microphone and basically say if Congress doesn't act, he will. And to twist the law into a pretzel. And to impose his will on every product that is created, every industry in this country, every farmer and rancher. That is not a Constitutional Republic! And then he calls us flat-earthers. He's the President of the Flat Earth Society."

Senate immigration bill incentivizes employers to hire amnestied illegals over citizens

Guess what? Under the Gang of Ocho's bill, it'll be cheaper for employers to hire newly legalized immigrants over citizens if they want to avoid $3,000/employee of Obamacare fees.

Oh, the conundrums in taking the Pelosi approach towards legislative passage...
WeeklyStandard: Obamacare poses a tricky problem for supporters of the Senate's comprehensive immigration reform bill. It would be too politically toxic to give illegal immigrants amnesty and taxpayer subsidies under Obamacare, so the Senate bill prohibits "registered provisional immigrants" (individuals who are now residing illegally in the United States granted legal status under the bill) from receiving Obamacare subsidies. But in so doing the Senate's immigration bill would create a big financial incentive for some employers to hire non-citizens granted legal status over American citizens.

As the Washington Examiner's Philip Klein recently reported: "Under Obamacare, businesses with over 50 workers that employ American citizens without offering them qualifying health insurance could be subject to fines of up to $3,000 per worker. But because newly legalized immigrants wouldn’t be eligible for subsidies on the Obamacare exchanges until after they become citizens – at least 13 years under the Senate bill – businesses could avoid such fines by hiring the new immigrants instead."

On Tuesday afternoon, THE WEEKLY STANDARD asked five different U.S. Senators about this problem. These five senators, all Democrats, voted to cut off debate Monday night on the revised immigration bill, but none of them knew if the bill would create a financial incentive for some employers to hire amnestied immigrants instead of American citizens.
Because none of them read a damn thing they vote FOR! However, they'd have to care first for it to matter. Sen. Bob Casey's comment encapsulates what's wrong with Washington so perfectly...
"I don't know. I'd have to look at it closely," said Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania. "I just haven't read it that closely to know."
Blind demagogues

Sen. Ted Cruz discussed this topic in detail on Tuesday morning's Ben Ferguson Show (AUDIO).

Obama pushing sports leagues to back Obamacare

With support for Obamacare down to a dismal 35%, the federal government began it's desperate outreach efforts Monday...
Reuters: The Obama administration on Monday kicked off its public education campaign to get the uninsured to sign up for health coverage, with a new call center and a revamped website intended as the market entry point for millions of new consumers.

The campaign is expected to target 2.7 million younger consumers between the ages of 18 to 35, whose participation in new online health insurance exchanges is vital to the success of President Barack Obama's 2010 healthcare reform law.
'Kicked off' is an accurate descriptor, because it seems that the 'how' involved in the administration's efforts to push Obamacare onto a nation that doesn't want it will revolve around one of the few outlets Americans retreat to in order to escape politics...well, it was anyway...
Breitbart: On Monday, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius announced that she would be working with the National Football League to have the NFL push coverage of Obamacare. This report follows in the wake of reports last week that Sebelius would be working with the National Basketball Association. Sebelius explained that the NFL is “very actively and enthusiastically engaged” in a conversation about how to popularize Obamacare. “We’re having active discussions right now with a variety of sports affiliates,” she said.

Both the NFL and the NBA are reportedly not-for-profit entities. The HHS is already under fire for soliciting private non-profits to push Obamacare.
Nothing's sacred...not even your Monday nights. Our pop culture President's forcing you to accept his pillaging of the American healthcare system with a little help from his friends. And he's banking on the 20-to-30-somethings buying it hook-line-and-sinker through the bombardment of sports entertainment.

I've got a feeling this might negatively affect ratings, though, as most are exhausted with his narcissistic mug.

Related link: Obama admin pushing pro leagues to back Obamacare
NFL to Push Obamacare Exchanges (And I Don't Want to Watch It)

Rush: Amnesty bill is 'effectively the end of the Republican Party'

Referencing some of the latest polling data, Rush had a damnable message for the GOP today...
"What this bill is, is effectively the end of the Republican Party, because this will send the Republican Party base fleeing. And that's probably why, aside from the money, from big donors I mean that's gonna happen here, the Republican Party, many members of it, probably wouldn't mind at all if the bitter clingers in its base went away."

NationalJournal: The conservative rank-and-file have a loud and clear message for Republican officials: Support citizenship for illegal immigrants at your own peril.

A sizable plurality of registered GOP voters say they will be less likely to support their incumbent lawmaker if he or she votes for immigration reform that includes a pathway to citizenship for those currently living illegally in the United States, according to the latest United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll. The findings show that even as national Republican leaders tout the Senate's reform measure as a political necessity for the party, it remains a risky vote for individual GOP lawmakers wary of a primary challenger.

Among Republicans, the issue elicits much more passion, none of it good for immigration-reform advocates within the GOP. Nearly half, 49 percent, said lawmakers who back a proposal offering a pathway to citizenship will lose their support.

The antipathy runs deepest among the most conservative bloc of voters--blue-collar whites--and in places where many Republicans draw their support, rural areas. Forty-five percent of whites without a college degree said they are less likely to support lawmakers voting for the measure. Among rural voters, 45 percent said they’d be less likely to back the incumbent...

Independents side with Republicans on the question, although with less fervency. Thirty-five percent of them said they will be less likely to back a lawmaker who supports comprehensive immigration reform...

The relative lack of interest from Democrats, combined with the GOP-leaning position among independents, creates further disincentive for Republicans, who are unlikely to find much general-election reward for their vote if they survive a primary.
On Friday, NumbersUSA publicized similarly trending results in a Pulse Opinion Research survey...
The poll found that arguments for the legislation were exceptionally unpopular not only with Republicans and conservatives but with Independents and moderates, and with Catholics as well as Protestants and Evangelicals. This was also true of those with working-class identities -- such as those in union households and with less education -- swing voters with whom Republicans did so poorly in last year's elections.

The poll found the least support for arguments in favor of the bill's increases in foreign workers and overall immigration.

Every demographic group showed low support for the bill's increase in less-educated foreign workers, including Republicans (7%), moderates (8%), high school grads (4%), Hispanics (19%) and the young age 18-39 (14%).
And for yet another perspective in gauging Republican voter outrage, one Arizona group is saying 'Enough is Enough!' and has already begun the drive to recall both Flake and McCain, per Arizona's Constitution! Here's your reminder, boys...
Arizona Constitution Article 8, Section 1.
“Every public officer in the state of Arizona, holding an elective office, either by election or appointment, is subject to recall from such office by the qualified electors of the electoral district from which candidates are elected to such office. Such electoral district may include the whole state. Such number of said electors as shall equal twenty-five per centum of the number of votes cast at the last preceding general election for all of the candidates for the office held by such officer, may by petition, which shall be known as a recall petition, demand his recall.”
Related links: The Fix is In on the Amnesty Bill
The Latino Vote Is Just ‘Smoke And Mirrors’

SCOTUS sends affirmative action case back to lower courts, strikes down outdated Section 4 of Voting Rights Act

Busy week for the Supreme Court this week as justices hand down decisions on several cases before they adjourn for the summer. They're set to rule on the Federal Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8 (the measure passed by the state’s voters defining marriage as between one man and one woman), its decision on a case involving how colleges use affirmative action in admitting students, and rulings on cases involving voting rights, private property, workplace discrimination and generic drugs.

It appears that the SCOTUS has decided to start with the civil rights related cases.

On Monday, the Court sent the affirmative action case back to lower courts...
WashingtonTimes: The Supreme Court on Monday sent a major affirmative action case back to the lower courts to be reheard, ducking the chance to rewrite discrimination laws and instead affirming the current state of law for racial preferences, saying they can be used for admissions but only if there is a compelling need and no other remedy works.

Some legal analysts had predicted the court would use the case from the University of Texas at Austin to issue a broad ruling that would overturn affirmative action policies, but the 7-1 ruling was narrow in scope and didn’t overturn any current laws or court precedents.

Both sides in the affirmative action debate claimed victory, with supporters of preferences saying the court reaffirmed their use while opponents said sending the case back to be reheard under stricter standards shows the justices are leaning toward ending special treatment.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who agreed with the ruling, filed a blistering concurring opinion saying that it was time to end these kinds of racial preferences altogether.
Also yesterday, as an aside, the Supreme Court set a future date to review Obama's unlawful recess appointments...
HotAir: It won’t be for a while, as this session of the Supreme Court will come to an end this week with the release of its most controversial decisions of the term. However, next year, the court will hear arguments on what constitutes a recess, and how much power the President has to make appointments without the advice and consent of the Senate.
Now, back on topic. Today, a significant victory for state's rights was made in a 5-4 decision, striking down key portions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act...
TheRightScoop: In short, the Supreme Court struck down the formula used in determining which voting jurisdictions need to ask the DOJ before they can change their voter laws – because of past history of discrimination. The court basically told Congress that the current formula is outdated, given it was established in the 1960s, and gives Congress the opportunity to update it:
AtlanticWire: The Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder on Tuesday. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion in the 5 to 4 decision. The court found that the VRA’s formula for deciding which jurisdictions should be subject to preclearance is unconstitutional, SCOTUSblog explains, because while the formula was rational in the 1960s, it’s not anymore. In other words, things are different in the South.

The Alabama county challenged Section 5 of the legislation, which requires that states and counties with a history of trying to block minorities from voting get pre-clearance from the Justice Department to change any voting laws — from the requirements to register to vote to the location of a polling station. Section 4 is the formula that determines what places Section 5 applies to. The majority opinion says, “Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting found in [Section] 2. We issue no holding on [Section] 5 itself, only on the coverage formula. Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions.”
...without section 4 there is no section 5. So basically the DOJ can’t lawfully challenge any state or jurisdiction for changing their voting laws until Congress reestablishes the formula.
Ed Morrissey addresses the likelihood that Congress will reestablish the formula...
HotAir: Will Congress address the court decision with a renovated Section 4? Doubtful, even without Chuck Todd’s conclusion that it’s not “mature enough” to deal with voting rights at all. The problem left by this decision will be to find someplace in America where state law creates endemic racial and ethnic discrimination at a level that requires federal intervention in the state legislative process. Where might that be? The opinion includes this chart showing the difference between white and black voting registration in 1965 and 2004:

The only state where the difference is outside the margin of polling error is, surprisingly, Virginia, where the gap was lowest in 1965. (Look at the improvement in Mississippi, for instance, and ask why it’s still on the Section 4 list.) Rather than interfere with states’ legislative process before the fact (which is what the preclearance provision allows), the DoJ can address Virginia’s current statutes with the rest of the VRA now — without Sections 4 or 5. Congress could designate Virginia only in a revised Section 4, too, but that’s going to be a very tough sell.
Now, let's see where they go from here on the rest of this week's rulings. Hopefully in the right direction.

Monday, June 24, 2013

Final tally for amnesty's your PRIMARY OUT list!

While the solidified Democratic vote is unquestionably despicable towards any notion of responsible governance, security or sovereignty, conservatives will undoubtedly find the Republican split even more reprehensible...

Here's the final roll call for the cloture vote on that phony border security amendment (Corker-Hoeven) to the Gang of Ocho's amnesty bill:
YEAs —67
Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Chiesa (R-NJ)
Collins (R-ME)
Coons (D-DE)
Corker (R-TN)
Cowan (D-MA)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Flake (R-AZ)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Graham (R-SC)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Heller (R-NV)
Hirono (D-HI)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs —27
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Fischer (R-NE)
Grassley (R-IA)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Scott (R-SC)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)

Not Voting – 6
Brown (D-OH)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Enzi (R-WY)
Isakson (R-GA)
Lee (R-UT)
Udall (D-CO)
Among the non-votes that were held up at the airport or something, you can guarantee both Democrats would have voted 'yea' along with the rest of their coalescent cabal, as well as the two RINOs, Chambliss and Isakson, which WaPo already reported as “potential” yes votes. That garners Chucky Schmucky's 70-vote dream.

Also, you might as well ignore McConnell's 'nay' vote...the supposed minority leader didn't lift a damn finger to clamp down on Republican ranks and expose this sham either during its inception on Friday or over the weekend in the short amount of time provided to decipher more of its obvious deception.

Every one of these 'YEAs' must hear from their constituents. Folks, here's your PRIMARY OUT list! Make no mistake, those who voted for cloture tonight have in effect voted FOR the amnesty bill, regardless of how they vote on the final bill. This was the vote that counted, and every one of them knew that. Whether for more Democratic votes or for cheaper Republican labor, these dumb bastards have taken yet another irreparable step towards America's demise, more so than any party polity's advantage one way or another.

These are the traitors Cicero warned of.

Related link: Senate advances immigration bill in key test vote

ADDENDUM: Btw, this all unfolded during Levin's program...
theRightScoop: Mark Levin explains the fatal flaw in the Corker amendment and then predicts how the immigration bill will end up passing the House. At the end, though, he says the only way this doesn’t pass is if we scare the hell out of the Republicans in the House and let them know we’re on to them.
Here's more from Levin:
On Monday's Mark Levin Show: Mark talks about the Immigration Bill and says that this will directly affect all of us and it is written specifically so that when it's challenged in the court, there's no real easy way the Constitutionalists can defeat it. The Republicans are willingly being duped into voting for the Border Amendment as 15 of them voted with the Democrats to pass it and further unravel our immigration policy. Mark says that this is a vote on who you should or shouldn't support in the next election. We won't fund these RINOs and others that set us up to fall and took advantage of the Tea Party to get in office in the first place. Victor Davis Hanson calls in and says that this is an elitist mentality where it is our politicians against the rest of the country that they are supposed to represent. Dan Stein of FAIR calls in and explains that this Amendment went thru so quickly, so that we wouldn't have time to challenge it.